"Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow!"
News Flash: It's already February! Where'd January go anyway?
Momentum is my buzzword for 2011. I had a great 2010, and my hope at the beginning of 2011 was that the momentum of 2010 would continue, and continue to increase. So far I am not disappointed.
I thought about writing a post in the middle of January talking about the yearly lull in life I usually experience between January 2 and the first good thunderstorm of the season, usually around the middle of March. To me, this is the deadest, most boring time of the year. Normally, nothing really happens. I generally spend the time just waiting it out, knowing that Spring will be here soon.
I thought about writing that post, but never got around to it. I've just been too busy. And it's been a fun busy so far. Business is going well, family life is hectic and exciting and my God life is more energetic than it has been in years. I'm very excited and very pleased. If January is like this, April is going to be fantastic!
Even though Momentum has been on my mind since December, I'm not as prepared as I thought I would be for everything that's going on. At work, on my blog and in other areas, projects that are important to me, and that I am excited to finish, are being relegated to the 'back burner' just because the "A" list is full.
I can't decide if this is a good thing or not.
And I need some down time.
And Sir Winter answers tonight with what promises to be an incredible snow storm. (Anything over 2 inches down here qualifies as Snowpocalypse. The city will shut down for a few days until the snow goes away and everyone gets cabin fever.) I'm looking forward to the time.
And I'm looking forward to February - I don't think I've ever said that before, ever in my whole life.
Life Is Good!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Friday, January 28, 2011
Point of Order, Please...
"No government can survive without at least the passive support of the people it governs."
Of course I've been following the news on the Internet about the situation in Egypt, and the impending collapse of the thirty year regime of Hosni Mubarak. I don't care much about politics, not because I'm cynical, but because I don't believe in it. See my Upside Down Circles post for my political views if you care. I don't want my blog to be political, and I don't want to be associated with any political party, agenda, perspective or bias. I am 'apolitical' as others are 'amoral'.
But I've seen a tendency on the message boards around the news stories to associate the social and political unrest in Egypt with Muslim extremists called the Islamic Brotherhood, and attempts to link Egypt's troubles to those of Tunisia, Yemen and even Somalia. And although I am loathe to post a political blog entry, I would like to object.
In any religion, Muslim, Christian, pagan - whatever, poverty, corruption, abuse of power and disregard for the needs of the people are not good things. If the people of Egypt were happy and felt like there was hope for their future and their kids, had plenty to eat and were living good lives, and thought they had some input into their destinies, there would be no traction for the Islamic Brotherhood or anyone else to incite the people to the point of overthrowing the government.
Don't blame religion for government's failure! Unhappy people may be inspired by situations in other countries, and may be encouraged by what they see as a successful revolution in Tunisia. But people who are overall happy with life do not riot, rebel and conduct revolutions against the government. Not in Tunisia. Not in Egypt. Not in Western Europe and not in the good old U S of A.
Some US and Western European government officials better be watching and learning!
Of course I've been following the news on the Internet about the situation in Egypt, and the impending collapse of the thirty year regime of Hosni Mubarak. I don't care much about politics, not because I'm cynical, but because I don't believe in it. See my Upside Down Circles post for my political views if you care. I don't want my blog to be political, and I don't want to be associated with any political party, agenda, perspective or bias. I am 'apolitical' as others are 'amoral'.
But I've seen a tendency on the message boards around the news stories to associate the social and political unrest in Egypt with Muslim extremists called the Islamic Brotherhood, and attempts to link Egypt's troubles to those of Tunisia, Yemen and even Somalia. And although I am loathe to post a political blog entry, I would like to object.
In any religion, Muslim, Christian, pagan - whatever, poverty, corruption, abuse of power and disregard for the needs of the people are not good things. If the people of Egypt were happy and felt like there was hope for their future and their kids, had plenty to eat and were living good lives, and thought they had some input into their destinies, there would be no traction for the Islamic Brotherhood or anyone else to incite the people to the point of overthrowing the government.
Don't blame religion for government's failure! Unhappy people may be inspired by situations in other countries, and may be encouraged by what they see as a successful revolution in Tunisia. But people who are overall happy with life do not riot, rebel and conduct revolutions against the government. Not in Tunisia. Not in Egypt. Not in Western Europe and not in the good old U S of A.
Some US and Western European government officials better be watching and learning!
Monday, January 24, 2011
MIQ #2: Religions
"Be a clone and kiss conviction Good Night! Cloneliness is next to Godliness, Right?"
I promise, this is the last one, but it's time to talk about the God based worldviews. I really should avoid the word religion, so that I avoid the connotation of blindly following a set of rules, rituals, creeds and liturgies while turning the brain off except to condemn anyone who does not do likewise. This is badly implemented religion widely practiced all over the world, in all kinds of cultures and belief systems. This is NOT what I'm talking about.
In addition, I should point out that all worldviews except the default answer have a God. For the materialist, money is God. For the scientist, nature is God. For the humanist, humanity is God, etc.
In religious worldviews, God is presumed to be a higher power that controls human destiny, and is presumed to have a personality, a will, a purpose in and of Himself and for humanity and each human. When a God based worldview says, "God is good", the contention is not that God passes the good vs. evil test and is found to be good. Rather the contention is that God defines what Good is. God IS Good.
Certain God based worldviews like Agnosticism and Theism deviate from the previous paragraph in that they believe that it is either impossible to know God or that God created then moved on, leaving us to do as we please with His creation. Pragmatically speaking, these worldviews are not too different from the abyss. Other God based worldviews assume that God wants man to find Him, know Him and connect with Him.
The character of God varies within the God based worldviews and factions thereof. Some characterize God as absolute, holy, uncompromising and judgmental. They are afraid of Him, and their world revolves around obedience. Others see God as weak, helpless and incompetent which is why they are so zealous to do His job of judging and condemning everyone else. Some see God as Father, Shepherd, Teacher, Helper or Friend, and tend to emphasize trust and faith in any circumstance.
From what I can see, each of the groups mentioned above can be found in any of the major religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all contain groups of people who fit into each category above. This is what differentiates a religion from from a worldview.
If I have a certain worldview and choose a religion that lines up with my worldview, I haven't really accomplished anything. I just learn to say the right things, do the right things and feel good about my worldview. Religion becomes my expression of my worldview, and as such serves no purpose at all. I'm just a wind up toy soldier marching blindly forward. From what I can see, this is the vast majority of church members, even church leaders. And it's a real shame.
But finding an expression of God in which I have confidence, and binding myself to that point of view as a wife binds herself to her husband, opening myself to the fullness of that expression and yeilding my own perspective to its presumed higher wisdom, intentionally and with all of my heart is a different thing. This is the context in which a religion qualifies as a worldview.
An expression of God that is a worldview in and of itself, with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss, more reliable (credible) than science and reaches higher than the pragmatic...Now we're getting closer to 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived.'
I promise, this is the last one, but it's time to talk about the God based worldviews. I really should avoid the word religion, so that I avoid the connotation of blindly following a set of rules, rituals, creeds and liturgies while turning the brain off except to condemn anyone who does not do likewise. This is badly implemented religion widely practiced all over the world, in all kinds of cultures and belief systems. This is NOT what I'm talking about.
In addition, I should point out that all worldviews except the default answer have a God. For the materialist, money is God. For the scientist, nature is God. For the humanist, humanity is God, etc.
In religious worldviews, God is presumed to be a higher power that controls human destiny, and is presumed to have a personality, a will, a purpose in and of Himself and for humanity and each human. When a God based worldview says, "God is good", the contention is not that God passes the good vs. evil test and is found to be good. Rather the contention is that God defines what Good is. God IS Good.
Certain God based worldviews like Agnosticism and Theism deviate from the previous paragraph in that they believe that it is either impossible to know God or that God created then moved on, leaving us to do as we please with His creation. Pragmatically speaking, these worldviews are not too different from the abyss. Other God based worldviews assume that God wants man to find Him, know Him and connect with Him.
The character of God varies within the God based worldviews and factions thereof. Some characterize God as absolute, holy, uncompromising and judgmental. They are afraid of Him, and their world revolves around obedience. Others see God as weak, helpless and incompetent which is why they are so zealous to do His job of judging and condemning everyone else. Some see God as Father, Shepherd, Teacher, Helper or Friend, and tend to emphasize trust and faith in any circumstance.
From what I can see, each of the groups mentioned above can be found in any of the major religions. Christianity, Islam and Judaism all contain groups of people who fit into each category above. This is what differentiates a religion from from a worldview.
If I have a certain worldview and choose a religion that lines up with my worldview, I haven't really accomplished anything. I just learn to say the right things, do the right things and feel good about my worldview. Religion becomes my expression of my worldview, and as such serves no purpose at all. I'm just a wind up toy soldier marching blindly forward. From what I can see, this is the vast majority of church members, even church leaders. And it's a real shame.
But finding an expression of God in which I have confidence, and binding myself to that point of view as a wife binds herself to her husband, opening myself to the fullness of that expression and yeilding my own perspective to its presumed higher wisdom, intentionally and with all of my heart is a different thing. This is the context in which a religion qualifies as a worldview.
An expression of God that is a worldview in and of itself, with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss, more reliable (credible) than science and reaches higher than the pragmatic...Now we're getting closer to 'that than which nothing greater can be conceived.'
Saturday, January 22, 2011
MIQ #2: The Pragmatic
"Many times the most obvious answer is also the right answer."
Another whole class of worldviews falls under the heading of The Pragmatic. To me, Humanism, Materialism and Aestheticism fall into this category. All of these worldviews share a very noble character trait, which is that they sacrifice Destiny for Legacy. In many cases, people who cling to these worldviews are wonderful, caring, giving, beautiful people. These worldviews are very 'earthy', and full of flavor.
Humanists take a lot of crap from the church because they replace God with Humanity. The glory of humanity is the goal, and any one life is only a very small piece of that goal. Self worth and satisfaction in life come from doing everything possible to advance the next generation, build a solid, secure society, care for others and insure the survival and continued growth and development of the human race. Humanity is the important thing, and my contribution to the future of humanity is the legacy that gives my life definition and meaning.
Materialistic people, who derive their self esteem from the power they wield, the fortunes they accumulate and the influence they exert, are less fortunate. They know they can't take it with them, but they can enjoy it while they are here. And even after they have more than they could possibly enjoy, they continue to strive to acquire more. I think that nobody would choose this worldview intentionally, but many are afflicted by it.
Aestheticism is much more interesting to me. The opposite of materialism, aestheticism seeks beauty, and values it above all else. Beauty needs definition, but the connotation of aestheticism is that the whole world is beautiful and this beauty should be acknowledged, exalted and appreciated. Further, each of us has the ability to recreate or originally create beauty, and not to do so is not to live. My legacy is my beautiful life, and the impact I have had on the world in highlighting and preserving its inherent beauty.
I am a very pragmatic person, despite obvious evidence to the contrary in my blog. I admire the pragmatic worldviews because of their obvious impact and effectiveness. I don't want to steal my thunder from my conclusions about choosing a worldview, but the Christian worldview is all of these pragmatic worldviews on steroids. Christianity completes and empowers any of the worldviews mentioned above - even materialism, albeit somewhat conditionally.
I would think, for example, that a true humanist would genuinely appreciate the Destiny offered by the Christian worldview both on an individual basis and concerning all of humanity. My concern with all of the pragmatic worldviews is that they are short sighted and too limited. I can imagine a better, higher purpose for each of the pragmatic worldviews I considered, and see no conflict but only augmentation when aligned with the more esoteric worldviews available to me. I see no necessity in sacrificing Destiny for Legacy.
I want a worldview with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss, more reliable (credible) than science and reaches higher than the pragmatic.. Now am I asking for too much here?
Another whole class of worldviews falls under the heading of The Pragmatic. To me, Humanism, Materialism and Aestheticism fall into this category. All of these worldviews share a very noble character trait, which is that they sacrifice Destiny for Legacy. In many cases, people who cling to these worldviews are wonderful, caring, giving, beautiful people. These worldviews are very 'earthy', and full of flavor.
Humanists take a lot of crap from the church because they replace God with Humanity. The glory of humanity is the goal, and any one life is only a very small piece of that goal. Self worth and satisfaction in life come from doing everything possible to advance the next generation, build a solid, secure society, care for others and insure the survival and continued growth and development of the human race. Humanity is the important thing, and my contribution to the future of humanity is the legacy that gives my life definition and meaning.
Materialistic people, who derive their self esteem from the power they wield, the fortunes they accumulate and the influence they exert, are less fortunate. They know they can't take it with them, but they can enjoy it while they are here. And even after they have more than they could possibly enjoy, they continue to strive to acquire more. I think that nobody would choose this worldview intentionally, but many are afflicted by it.
Aestheticism is much more interesting to me. The opposite of materialism, aestheticism seeks beauty, and values it above all else. Beauty needs definition, but the connotation of aestheticism is that the whole world is beautiful and this beauty should be acknowledged, exalted and appreciated. Further, each of us has the ability to recreate or originally create beauty, and not to do so is not to live. My legacy is my beautiful life, and the impact I have had on the world in highlighting and preserving its inherent beauty.
I am a very pragmatic person, despite obvious evidence to the contrary in my blog. I admire the pragmatic worldviews because of their obvious impact and effectiveness. I don't want to steal my thunder from my conclusions about choosing a worldview, but the Christian worldview is all of these pragmatic worldviews on steroids. Christianity completes and empowers any of the worldviews mentioned above - even materialism, albeit somewhat conditionally.
I would think, for example, that a true humanist would genuinely appreciate the Destiny offered by the Christian worldview both on an individual basis and concerning all of humanity. My concern with all of the pragmatic worldviews is that they are short sighted and too limited. I can imagine a better, higher purpose for each of the pragmatic worldviews I considered, and see no conflict but only augmentation when aligned with the more esoteric worldviews available to me. I see no necessity in sacrificing Destiny for Legacy.
I want a worldview with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss, more reliable (credible) than science and reaches higher than the pragmatic.. Now am I asking for too much here?
Friday, January 21, 2011
MIQ #2: The Fantastic
"Believing in something is a different thing than wishing for something."
Just as several worldviews can be combined and categorized as 'the default answer', there is another category of worldviews that I consider The Fantastic. Some of them are scary, some pointless and some pretty neat. Here are two perfect examples of what I'm talking about:
First, there's The Matrix. It made for a great series of movies, and Keanu Reeves is ... well, nevermind. Hopefully you know the movies and the plot.
Second, there is Richard Bach's Illusions. This book promotes (among other things) a worldview whereby we are just experiencing a form of life that's different than any we've lived before. It paints a human as universal, immortal creature that could have taken on any life in one of an infinite number of dimensions, and does so just for the experience of it. Maybe when I'm finished with this life, I'll choose to be a star for a life, or a pretty rich girl, or a cockroach or something in a world that is not space-time related at all. It's all just fun.
These are both good stories, and I have enjoyed them. But they're just fantasies, just expressions of someone's imagination. There is not enough substance behind them to actually believe in it at all.
Most science qualifies as fantastic. When science tries to answer worldview questions, i.e. the nature of everything, the best it can come up with is a plausible theory with a little evidence. Of course scientists give more credence to science than to the mystics like Nostradamus. I tend to be a little skeptical of both. The only clear truth in science is that its understanding of the nature of things changes over time. Obviously the science of 1492 changed when Columbus sailed the waters blue. But science has changed dramatically since the 1970's when hair spray and aerosol deodorant was going to destroy the ozone layer and kill the planet, and carbon dioxide wasn't even on the map.
I don't intend to criticize science, but I don't think I can build my life around its theories either. In my search for a worldview, one thing became pretty clear: If we're going to be able to interact with the nature of everything, or find anything close to the truth, the truth itself is going to have to help. Again, by definition, a worldview cannot have a point of reference outside of itself. The only place that point of reference could come from is the Abyss. The only other choice I can think of is that the worldview itself must reveal itself to us in a way we can comprehend, relate to and trust. If this isn't true, I'm afraid we're stuck with the default answer.
I want a worldview with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss and more reliable (credible) than science. Am I asking for too much here?
Just as several worldviews can be combined and categorized as 'the default answer', there is another category of worldviews that I consider The Fantastic. Some of them are scary, some pointless and some pretty neat. Here are two perfect examples of what I'm talking about:
First, there's The Matrix. It made for a great series of movies, and Keanu Reeves is ... well, nevermind. Hopefully you know the movies and the plot.
Second, there is Richard Bach's Illusions. This book promotes (among other things) a worldview whereby we are just experiencing a form of life that's different than any we've lived before. It paints a human as universal, immortal creature that could have taken on any life in one of an infinite number of dimensions, and does so just for the experience of it. Maybe when I'm finished with this life, I'll choose to be a star for a life, or a pretty rich girl, or a cockroach or something in a world that is not space-time related at all. It's all just fun.
These are both good stories, and I have enjoyed them. But they're just fantasies, just expressions of someone's imagination. There is not enough substance behind them to actually believe in it at all.
Most science qualifies as fantastic. When science tries to answer worldview questions, i.e. the nature of everything, the best it can come up with is a plausible theory with a little evidence. Of course scientists give more credence to science than to the mystics like Nostradamus. I tend to be a little skeptical of both. The only clear truth in science is that its understanding of the nature of things changes over time. Obviously the science of 1492 changed when Columbus sailed the waters blue. But science has changed dramatically since the 1970's when hair spray and aerosol deodorant was going to destroy the ozone layer and kill the planet, and carbon dioxide wasn't even on the map.
I don't intend to criticize science, but I don't think I can build my life around its theories either. In my search for a worldview, one thing became pretty clear: If we're going to be able to interact with the nature of everything, or find anything close to the truth, the truth itself is going to have to help. Again, by definition, a worldview cannot have a point of reference outside of itself. The only place that point of reference could come from is the Abyss. The only other choice I can think of is that the worldview itself must reveal itself to us in a way we can comprehend, relate to and trust. If this isn't true, I'm afraid we're stuck with the default answer.
I want a worldview with a more meaningful outcome than the Divide By Zero answer, that is more tangible than the Abyss and more reliable (credible) than science. Am I asking for too much here?
Thursday, January 20, 2011
The Jigsaw Puzzle
"First put the puzzle together, then see if you like it. "
Being an Uncle is about the most interesting thing in my life (outside of my head). My brother has seen fit to provide me with a diverse variety of nieces and nephews, some of whom I am close to and some not so much. There are six of them altogether, and sometimes it seems like there are many more than that.
Ranging in age from four years old to twenty-three, my nieces and nephews provide a basically limitless array of opportunities to study and enjoy the development of human beings. From my perspective, it's a miracle that anyone actually makes that trip, let alone matures to the point that they start the process over again with kids of their own.
At the moment, my brother and Number Three are engaged in a project that comes down to putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Somewhere, hidden in the pieces of the puzzle are resolutions to issues involving transportation, money, inventory control, professional development, and several other components of the family business, their relationship and the process of turning kids (and dads?) into humans.
The benefits available to each of them are obvious, and pretty awesome. All they have to do is put the pieces together. It's just a damn jigsaw puzzle. How hard can it be?
I think it would be easier if each of them would worry less about whether they like the pieces and more about getting the puzzle together correctly.
"Oh, this piece is too big, and I want it to be a different color."
"This piece is shaped strangely. I want it to be more square with one rounded edge."
"I want to put this piece where that one goes. That one is ugly."
"This piece is lopsided, and the indentation on the right is deeper than I prefer."
Who gives a shit!? Just put the pieces together. How's this for a concept: Assemble the pieces in whatever way they fit together, then look at the whole puzzle and see what you get.
Stop bitching, start encouraging. Stop inventing ultimatums, start reaching consensus. Stop looking at the pieces from your own points of view, look at the whole puzzle from the perspective of each other's best interests. Stop finding fault, start respecting each other's strengths. Stop talking and start listening. Neither of you has come as far as you have by being idiots. Why are you doing that now?
My sister in law isn't much help. She's deep down mad at her thirty-something year old brother who isn't worth two shakes of a fat rat's ass, and sleeps on their mom's couch until noon, and contributes nothing, and has no purpose in life at all other than consuming food and producing shit. Rather than go to her mom's house and express her frustration to her shit-machine brother, she's taking her anger out on Number Two and Number Three. She can't seem to grasp the concept that my nephews are not her brother, and shouldn't have to pay for his sins. God. Women. Sometimes I'm glad I'm gay.
OK, Please excuse the vent session. I promise to get back to MIQ #2 Tomorrow. I've already outlined the next couple of posts. That puzzle is much more fun than this one anyway.
Being an Uncle is about the most interesting thing in my life (outside of my head). My brother has seen fit to provide me with a diverse variety of nieces and nephews, some of whom I am close to and some not so much. There are six of them altogether, and sometimes it seems like there are many more than that.
Ranging in age from four years old to twenty-three, my nieces and nephews provide a basically limitless array of opportunities to study and enjoy the development of human beings. From my perspective, it's a miracle that anyone actually makes that trip, let alone matures to the point that they start the process over again with kids of their own.
At the moment, my brother and Number Three are engaged in a project that comes down to putting together a jigsaw puzzle. Somewhere, hidden in the pieces of the puzzle are resolutions to issues involving transportation, money, inventory control, professional development, and several other components of the family business, their relationship and the process of turning kids (and dads?) into humans.
The benefits available to each of them are obvious, and pretty awesome. All they have to do is put the pieces together. It's just a damn jigsaw puzzle. How hard can it be?
I think it would be easier if each of them would worry less about whether they like the pieces and more about getting the puzzle together correctly.
"Oh, this piece is too big, and I want it to be a different color."
"This piece is shaped strangely. I want it to be more square with one rounded edge."
"I want to put this piece where that one goes. That one is ugly."
"This piece is lopsided, and the indentation on the right is deeper than I prefer."
Who gives a shit!? Just put the pieces together. How's this for a concept: Assemble the pieces in whatever way they fit together, then look at the whole puzzle and see what you get.
Stop bitching, start encouraging. Stop inventing ultimatums, start reaching consensus. Stop looking at the pieces from your own points of view, look at the whole puzzle from the perspective of each other's best interests. Stop finding fault, start respecting each other's strengths. Stop talking and start listening. Neither of you has come as far as you have by being idiots. Why are you doing that now?
My sister in law isn't much help. She's deep down mad at her thirty-something year old brother who isn't worth two shakes of a fat rat's ass, and sleeps on their mom's couch until noon, and contributes nothing, and has no purpose in life at all other than consuming food and producing shit. Rather than go to her mom's house and express her frustration to her shit-machine brother, she's taking her anger out on Number Two and Number Three. She can't seem to grasp the concept that my nephews are not her brother, and shouldn't have to pay for his sins. God. Women. Sometimes I'm glad I'm gay.
OK, Please excuse the vent session. I promise to get back to MIQ #2 Tomorrow. I've already outlined the next couple of posts. That puzzle is much more fun than this one anyway.
Wednesday, January 19, 2011
MIQ #2: The Default Answer (The Abyss)
"A certain fish swam all over the ocean asking everyone he met if they knew the way to the sea."
There is an unstated property of the Default Answer, Divide by Zero worldview that deserves some special attention. It is the concept of Freedom. If I were to discuss my search for the right worldview with the Divide by Zero worldview, it would teach me that all worldviews are right (and wrong). It doesn't matter which worldview I choose, only that I fully engage whichever one I want to follow. It would teach me that I am free. That I am not bound by any concept, law, doctrine or tradition. It would show me that all of these things actually hold me back, and keep me from experiencing the freedom of thought and mind that the Divide by Zero worldview promotes.
Freedom without boundaries. The Divide by Zero worldview connotes that boundaries and freedom are mutually exclusive, and so long as I try to live within any set of boundaries, I am not free - not in the true sense of the word. The highest form of happiness and perfect peace comes from outgrowing or overriding all boundaries, all pleasures, all sorrow, all pain. I can experience this happiness only through living in the immediate moment all of my life.
Man, that sounds good. I think this is what the serpent in the Garden of Eden sold to Eve. Transcend the boundaries. Be like God. Eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and know that neither are important. Be free.
I question whether this kind of freedom is true freedom, or if it is just disorientation. Consider this: A blind man is "free" from seeing any horrible thing. He is free from seeing any beautiful thing too. If you ask a blind man, "What does 'beautiful' look like?" How could he answer the question? He has no frame of reference to evaluate beauty. Is this really Freedom?
If freedom=blindness, I think I do not want to be free. On the contrary, the question, "What does beautiful look like?" is subjective. I think that in my search for a worldview to build my life around, I want to try to find objective, universal answers to questions like, "What does beautiful look like?"
It seems to me that without boundaries, one cannot be free - only lost. Freedom without boundaries is not enlightenment, it is the abyss; the void. Freedom without a frame of reference is not meaningful, beneficial or productive. It is just a delusion.
Freedom comes from knowing and respecting the very boundaries that the Divide by Zero worldview negates. I want to be free - free to perceive and gravitate towards a universal Good, Beautiful, Right, Pure, Wonderful Expression of Everything. I want to be free to be proud of that Center, and live inside of its context. Living there IS Freedom, Meaning, Fulfillment, Identity, and Belonging.
For me, I reject the Divide by Zero, Default Answer worldview on these grounds. I do not want to live in the Abyss. I want to avoid the Void. I can conceive of better than this. I want better.
There is an unstated property of the Default Answer, Divide by Zero worldview that deserves some special attention. It is the concept of Freedom. If I were to discuss my search for the right worldview with the Divide by Zero worldview, it would teach me that all worldviews are right (and wrong). It doesn't matter which worldview I choose, only that I fully engage whichever one I want to follow. It would teach me that I am free. That I am not bound by any concept, law, doctrine or tradition. It would show me that all of these things actually hold me back, and keep me from experiencing the freedom of thought and mind that the Divide by Zero worldview promotes.
Freedom without boundaries. The Divide by Zero worldview connotes that boundaries and freedom are mutually exclusive, and so long as I try to live within any set of boundaries, I am not free - not in the true sense of the word. The highest form of happiness and perfect peace comes from outgrowing or overriding all boundaries, all pleasures, all sorrow, all pain. I can experience this happiness only through living in the immediate moment all of my life.
Man, that sounds good. I think this is what the serpent in the Garden of Eden sold to Eve. Transcend the boundaries. Be like God. Eat of the tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and know that neither are important. Be free.
I question whether this kind of freedom is true freedom, or if it is just disorientation. Consider this: A blind man is "free" from seeing any horrible thing. He is free from seeing any beautiful thing too. If you ask a blind man, "What does 'beautiful' look like?" How could he answer the question? He has no frame of reference to evaluate beauty. Is this really Freedom?
If freedom=blindness, I think I do not want to be free. On the contrary, the question, "What does beautiful look like?" is subjective. I think that in my search for a worldview to build my life around, I want to try to find objective, universal answers to questions like, "What does beautiful look like?"
It seems to me that without boundaries, one cannot be free - only lost. Freedom without boundaries is not enlightenment, it is the abyss; the void. Freedom without a frame of reference is not meaningful, beneficial or productive. It is just a delusion.
Freedom comes from knowing and respecting the very boundaries that the Divide by Zero worldview negates. I want to be free - free to perceive and gravitate towards a universal Good, Beautiful, Right, Pure, Wonderful Expression of Everything. I want to be free to be proud of that Center, and live inside of its context. Living there IS Freedom, Meaning, Fulfillment, Identity, and Belonging.
For me, I reject the Divide by Zero, Default Answer worldview on these grounds. I do not want to live in the Abyss. I want to avoid the Void. I can conceive of better than this. I want better.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
MIQ #2: The Default Answer (Divide By Zero)
"It just doesn't matter. It just doesn't matter."
When I was in fourth grade learning my multiplication tables, I had the hardest time understanding why math doesn't allow division by zero. Once I got my mind around it, it reminded me of the one tree in the garden of Eden that Adam and Eve were commanded not to touch. Dividing by zero in math is really the only sin one can commit. One can make many errors. But dividing by zero is more than error. It is indescribable, unthinkable, inconceivable. It is the one place math cannot go. The best word we have to characterize it is 'undefined'. Not even the smartest minds in the world can answer the question, "What is 4 divided by 0?" The answer just does not exist (or it can be whatever you want if you prefer).
There is a worldview that makes perfect sense, that many have accidentally or intentionally embraced, that answers all of life's questions, that relieves all of the pressure of understanding the world, that negates all joy, sorrow, pleasure and pain, and that reduces everything to "the circle of nothing" (i.e. zero).
The shallow expression of this worldview is, "Eat, Drink and Be Merry, for tomorrow we die." Nothing really matters. In the end we're all dead, so "make hay while the sun shines". A more pessimistic version of this worldview is expressed by Robert Penn Warren in All The King's Men: "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud."
The other end of the spectrum is the Buddhist concept of Nirvana: A perfect state of mind that is free from anger, desire and other 'afflicting' states. It is also the "end of the world;" there is no identity left and no boundaries for the mind. In various versions of this worldview, the words 'nothing' and 'everything' mean exactly the same thing. There is no distinction between them at all. Both words connote wholeness, completeness and perfect peace. This is thought of as the highest form of happiness. There is no 'God' per se, (or I could say that everything is God because it means the same thing).
Now, in the process of examining various worldviews, I kept in mind that all worldviews are circular (they depend on themselves), and that my overview study of any particular worldview is not thorough enough to tear it apart. Many people do this with Christianity: They take a version of the gospel suitable for presentation to a group of five year olds and use their college education to rip it to pieces and claim it makes no sense.
I did not make that mistake. I understand that, A) A large portion of the world embraces Buddhism and/or Hinduism, B) There are thousands of years of devout thought and study behind it, C), that I have not studied it enough to criticize its math, and D) there are obvious advantages to looking at life this way. For me to try to poke holes in the either the shallow or the deep versions of these worldviews would serve only to show my ignorance the way most atheists do when they criticize Christianity. I'm not doing that.
On the contrary. I assume that the overview is absolutely sound. I assume that whether I've studied it or not, the math works. I give it the benefit of the doubt, and carte blanche to paint whatever picture of the world it would have me believe. Then I ask myself whether I can conceive of (imagine) anything better. That is the process. That is the methodology I used in choosing my worldview on purpose, rather than accepting the one that was given to my by my parents, my education, my environment and my heritage.
So, here's what I can't get around: If the themes and variations of this worldview are true, then when it comes right down to it, nothing really matters.
I have named this worldview the "Divide by Zero Worldview". To me, it makes sense. But I want better, if I can find it and gain some level of confidence in it. I want things to matter. I want to matter. I want an identity. I want the trials, pleasures and drama to mean something. I want life to matter.
I think I will stop there for now.
When I was in fourth grade learning my multiplication tables, I had the hardest time understanding why math doesn't allow division by zero. Once I got my mind around it, it reminded me of the one tree in the garden of Eden that Adam and Eve were commanded not to touch. Dividing by zero in math is really the only sin one can commit. One can make many errors. But dividing by zero is more than error. It is indescribable, unthinkable, inconceivable. It is the one place math cannot go. The best word we have to characterize it is 'undefined'. Not even the smartest minds in the world can answer the question, "What is 4 divided by 0?" The answer just does not exist (or it can be whatever you want if you prefer).
There is a worldview that makes perfect sense, that many have accidentally or intentionally embraced, that answers all of life's questions, that relieves all of the pressure of understanding the world, that negates all joy, sorrow, pleasure and pain, and that reduces everything to "the circle of nothing" (i.e. zero).
The shallow expression of this worldview is, "Eat, Drink and Be Merry, for tomorrow we die." Nothing really matters. In the end we're all dead, so "make hay while the sun shines". A more pessimistic version of this worldview is expressed by Robert Penn Warren in All The King's Men: "Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption and he passeth from the stink of the didie to the stench of the shroud."
The other end of the spectrum is the Buddhist concept of Nirvana: A perfect state of mind that is free from anger, desire and other 'afflicting' states. It is also the "end of the world;" there is no identity left and no boundaries for the mind. In various versions of this worldview, the words 'nothing' and 'everything' mean exactly the same thing. There is no distinction between them at all. Both words connote wholeness, completeness and perfect peace. This is thought of as the highest form of happiness. There is no 'God' per se, (or I could say that everything is God because it means the same thing).
Now, in the process of examining various worldviews, I kept in mind that all worldviews are circular (they depend on themselves), and that my overview study of any particular worldview is not thorough enough to tear it apart. Many people do this with Christianity: They take a version of the gospel suitable for presentation to a group of five year olds and use their college education to rip it to pieces and claim it makes no sense.
I did not make that mistake. I understand that, A) A large portion of the world embraces Buddhism and/or Hinduism, B) There are thousands of years of devout thought and study behind it, C), that I have not studied it enough to criticize its math, and D) there are obvious advantages to looking at life this way. For me to try to poke holes in the either the shallow or the deep versions of these worldviews would serve only to show my ignorance the way most atheists do when they criticize Christianity. I'm not doing that.
On the contrary. I assume that the overview is absolutely sound. I assume that whether I've studied it or not, the math works. I give it the benefit of the doubt, and carte blanche to paint whatever picture of the world it would have me believe. Then I ask myself whether I can conceive of (imagine) anything better. That is the process. That is the methodology I used in choosing my worldview on purpose, rather than accepting the one that was given to my by my parents, my education, my environment and my heritage.
So, here's what I can't get around: If the themes and variations of this worldview are true, then when it comes right down to it, nothing really matters.
I have named this worldview the "Divide by Zero Worldview". To me, it makes sense. But I want better, if I can find it and gain some level of confidence in it. I want things to matter. I want to matter. I want an identity. I want the trials, pleasures and drama to mean something. I want life to matter.
I think I will stop there for now.
Monday, January 17, 2011
MIQ #2, Definitions
"Now, what are we talking about again?"
Well, it seems like I've taken a vacation without intending to. Just life is good (and busy). But I'm anxious to get back to the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian?" Before I go any farther, I want to define some terms:
Worldview: A working theory of everything that provides a context in which life, and specifically my life, happens. Everybody has one, even the most shallow people whose worldview consists of nothing more than their own satisfaction and pleasure and is no larger than 36 inches in any direction from the end of their, well, noses. A worldview is a mental model of reality. A framework of ideas and attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs.
It is my contention that it is not possible for a human to live without a worldview. We should therefore select a worldview intentionally, rather than accept the one that grows all by itself subject to our environment. Experience will give us a worldview, but there's no reason to think it will give us the right one, the best one or one that is in our best interests. Our worldview forms us and gives us our identity. It's much too mportant to leave to chance. Isn't it reasonable for us to pick a worldview, then conform to that worldview? To view life through that lens? To interact with the world based on the rules and properties of the worldview we choose?
God: The best definition I know of, in that it is the broadest, most basic, yet still complete definition, came from St Anselm. The definition is "That than which nothing greater can be conceived". The original version assumes God to be a being, and I do not. Therefore, I'm not using a biased version propagated by Christianity. I use the term more conceptually. We may explore God as a force, an idea or anything else. So long as we cannot conceive of anything better, we're in bounds to characterize God any way that makes reasonable sense. Maybe a better way to phrase this definition is, "That than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Since all worldviews are circular in nature, we have to let each worldview tell us its story without ripping it apart. Every worldview has a God (at the center of whatever that worldview represents), and is based on that than which nothing greater can be conceived by that worldview.
Destiny: Basically Future with a twist. Future is whatever happens from this point forward in time. Destiny is what happens from this point forward in time AND what it is when it is finished AND what it will have been at the end even from the beginning. Example: The White house was built in 1792. It's future, as it was being built, was to be the place that U.S. Presidents lived and worked. It's Destiny (likely unimaginable in 1792, and still unfolding today) was to be the seat of power for the whole free world.
My contention is that every valid worldview has a destiny except one: The Abyss. The Void. There is no destiny there, because there is nothing there at all. This worldview will be the first one we look at. I think it will be pretty easy to eliminate it as an intentional choice, but it is the Default Answer, in lieu of any other reasonable choice.
Other than that, it is fair game for us to examine the destiny that each worldview claims to offer as part of the process. A worldview with a better destiny will likely make a better choice than a worldview with a less enticing destiny.
OK, we may have to define some more terms as we go, but this should get us started. Coming next: The Default Answer.
Well, it seems like I've taken a vacation without intending to. Just life is good (and busy). But I'm anxious to get back to the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian?" Before I go any farther, I want to define some terms:
Worldview: A working theory of everything that provides a context in which life, and specifically my life, happens. Everybody has one, even the most shallow people whose worldview consists of nothing more than their own satisfaction and pleasure and is no larger than 36 inches in any direction from the end of their, well, noses. A worldview is a mental model of reality. A framework of ideas and attitudes about the world, ourselves, and life, a comprehensive system of beliefs.
It is my contention that it is not possible for a human to live without a worldview. We should therefore select a worldview intentionally, rather than accept the one that grows all by itself subject to our environment. Experience will give us a worldview, but there's no reason to think it will give us the right one, the best one or one that is in our best interests. Our worldview forms us and gives us our identity. It's much too mportant to leave to chance. Isn't it reasonable for us to pick a worldview, then conform to that worldview? To view life through that lens? To interact with the world based on the rules and properties of the worldview we choose?
God: The best definition I know of, in that it is the broadest, most basic, yet still complete definition, came from St Anselm. The definition is "That than which nothing greater can be conceived". The original version assumes God to be a being, and I do not. Therefore, I'm not using a biased version propagated by Christianity. I use the term more conceptually. We may explore God as a force, an idea or anything else. So long as we cannot conceive of anything better, we're in bounds to characterize God any way that makes reasonable sense. Maybe a better way to phrase this definition is, "That than which nothing greater can be imagined."
Since all worldviews are circular in nature, we have to let each worldview tell us its story without ripping it apart. Every worldview has a God (at the center of whatever that worldview represents), and is based on that than which nothing greater can be conceived by that worldview.
Destiny: Basically Future with a twist. Future is whatever happens from this point forward in time. Destiny is what happens from this point forward in time AND what it is when it is finished AND what it will have been at the end even from the beginning. Example: The White house was built in 1792. It's future, as it was being built, was to be the place that U.S. Presidents lived and worked. It's Destiny (likely unimaginable in 1792, and still unfolding today) was to be the seat of power for the whole free world.
My contention is that every valid worldview has a destiny except one: The Abyss. The Void. There is no destiny there, because there is nothing there at all. This worldview will be the first one we look at. I think it will be pretty easy to eliminate it as an intentional choice, but it is the Default Answer, in lieu of any other reasonable choice.
Other than that, it is fair game for us to examine the destiny that each worldview claims to offer as part of the process. A worldview with a better destiny will likely make a better choice than a worldview with a less enticing destiny.
OK, we may have to define some more terms as we go, but this should get us started. Coming next: The Default Answer.
Thursday, January 13, 2011
Servant Thoughts
"I want to be wanted, but I need to be needed."
I listened to a devotional this morning on the Servant's Heart. How many of those have I heard over the years? There was a different thought that was presented though, which is basically that a servant is not a slave.
'Servant' doesn't imply the absence of authority or responsibility. Just because someone is a servant does not mean others should not respect or honor them. Servant in the context of John 13:14 is a term directed at leaders and great men, not monkeys whose life involves doing exactly what they're told without thinking or questioning.
A servant's heart is more concerned with doing whatever is in the best interests of those around him, especially those for whom he is responsible. I know in business, when decisions need to be made that are not cut and dry, or where there is no right answer from a business perspective, sometimes I have used the question, "What is in the best interests of my employees?" to make the decision. Sometimes, the answer to that question is much more clear than the business perspective.
And since it is in their best interests, the people around me would work harder to make my decision work out the best way it could. They put more energy into the decision than they would into a different decision that was not in their best interests. That extra energy can make the difference between a successful decision and a bad one.
So when we get cornfungled, and aren't sure what the next move should be in some situation, perhaps we need to take a look at those around us and ask, "What would be best for them?" or "What would make them happy?" Sometimes it just feels good to make someone else feel good.
And it's OK if others see us as a servant.
I listened to a devotional this morning on the Servant's Heart. How many of those have I heard over the years? There was a different thought that was presented though, which is basically that a servant is not a slave.
'Servant' doesn't imply the absence of authority or responsibility. Just because someone is a servant does not mean others should not respect or honor them. Servant in the context of John 13:14 is a term directed at leaders and great men, not monkeys whose life involves doing exactly what they're told without thinking or questioning.
A servant's heart is more concerned with doing whatever is in the best interests of those around him, especially those for whom he is responsible. I know in business, when decisions need to be made that are not cut and dry, or where there is no right answer from a business perspective, sometimes I have used the question, "What is in the best interests of my employees?" to make the decision. Sometimes, the answer to that question is much more clear than the business perspective.
And since it is in their best interests, the people around me would work harder to make my decision work out the best way it could. They put more energy into the decision than they would into a different decision that was not in their best interests. That extra energy can make the difference between a successful decision and a bad one.
So when we get cornfungled, and aren't sure what the next move should be in some situation, perhaps we need to take a look at those around us and ask, "What would be best for them?" or "What would make them happy?" Sometimes it just feels good to make someone else feel good.
And it's OK if others see us as a servant.
Sunday, January 9, 2011
OK, Add This to The Creepy-Weird in a Good Way list...
"The Mind of Christ is One Mind."
On Friday, I posted the resolution to MIQ #1, which boils down to, "Call me whatever you want, good or bad. I will find my identity in the name that God gave me, which is 'Son'. Nobody on the planet, preacher or barfly, will devalue that name with condemnation or ridicule or anything else. And I will never question it again." (Scroll down just 2 days to Friday, January 7 to read that post.)
On Sunday, my pastor preached the very same message.
One of the most quoted verses of all time is, "All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purposes." I know I've quoted it, thought it, prayed it over various situations and used it as a safety net when things don't work out the way I think they should many, many times in my life.
Why, then, am I always surprised when things work together?
That's so weird it's creepy - in a good way!
The twist is that when I originally thought through the issue with names, it was partially responsible for my exodus from church. If the men of God up there proclaiming His word every week don't get this concept, why am I paying any attention to them anyway?
This week, Pastor Neill used it as a call into what God is doing through the church. A call to freedom in Christ, and through this freedom allowing Him to accomplish whatever He desires and has ordained (my paraphrase), because this is what worship is about!
So the same message, with the opposite impact.
That's so weird it's creepy - in a good way!
But to me, it documents that my thoughts on personal and universal momentum I've been thinking about for 2011 are genuine and legitimate. I am so ready to come out of my shell, stand up and get involved with life on earth again.
Talk about New Beginnings!!
This is going to be a Great Year!
On Friday, I posted the resolution to MIQ #1, which boils down to, "Call me whatever you want, good or bad. I will find my identity in the name that God gave me, which is 'Son'. Nobody on the planet, preacher or barfly, will devalue that name with condemnation or ridicule or anything else. And I will never question it again." (Scroll down just 2 days to Friday, January 7 to read that post.)
On Sunday, my pastor preached the very same message.
One of the most quoted verses of all time is, "All things work together for good for those who love God and are called according to His purposes." I know I've quoted it, thought it, prayed it over various situations and used it as a safety net when things don't work out the way I think they should many, many times in my life.
Why, then, am I always surprised when things work together?
That's so weird it's creepy - in a good way!
The twist is that when I originally thought through the issue with names, it was partially responsible for my exodus from church. If the men of God up there proclaiming His word every week don't get this concept, why am I paying any attention to them anyway?
This week, Pastor Neill used it as a call into what God is doing through the church. A call to freedom in Christ, and through this freedom allowing Him to accomplish whatever He desires and has ordained (my paraphrase), because this is what worship is about!
So the same message, with the opposite impact.
That's so weird it's creepy - in a good way!
But to me, it documents that my thoughts on personal and universal momentum I've been thinking about for 2011 are genuine and legitimate. I am so ready to come out of my shell, stand up and get involved with life on earth again.
Talk about New Beginnings!!
This is going to be a Great Year!
Saturday, January 8, 2011
MIQ #2, The More Important Question
"Like cramming a watermelon into a Coke bottle."
As I prepare to get into the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian?", I have to say that I'm excited and a little intimidated. I can't wait to get this part of my mind into written form. I sort of did it once before, as I developed the answer in the first place but it was a mess. My biggest challenge will be to present my thoughts in a coagulated, organized way that someone else has a chance of following, and do it thoroughly and concisely at the same time.
I was raised Christian. I could quote bible verses and stories long before I could read. As an adult, I wanted to know why I believe what I believe, and whether there is any substance to it, or whether I just had it crammed down my throat as a little kid and never considered any other options. The cool part is that Christianity passed my test - at least to my satisfaction. Now I make a humble effort to explain it to everyone else.
In no way do I intend to write a comprehensive, one size fits all, apologetic dissertation. That is work for others who are much more educated and intelligent than I am. (And nobody has come up with a good one yet that I know of.) My intent is much more simplistic. I want to explain why I believe, not necessarily why everyone else should. As I have said, I'm nobody's judge. I'm also nobody's brain.
Another challenge involves the circular nature of any worldview. If you think about it, it has to be this way. A worldview is a working theory of everything. By definition, a worldview cannot have a reference point outside of itself. If it could, it wouldn't be a worldview at all. Christianity, atheism, humanism, all other religions and all non-religious worldviews are circular. Even high school geometry is circular. The first thing we learn about geometry is to postulate the existence of a point and a line, and a concept that the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. There is no proof that these postulates are valid. Yet all higher math depends on them being true. So it is with worldviews in general.
This is one reason we cannot prove the existence of God. If God exists, by definition there is no point of reference outside of God that can be used to independently validate His existence. Since logic offers no possibility of proving a negative, there is no way to prove that God does not exist. We're stuck with reason for better or worse when discussing a worldview, a theory of everything.
Ultimately, acceptance of any worldview is a matter of choice - A matter of decision. This much, I should be able to prove to everyone over the next several dozen (hopefully not) posts. But there also has to be a basis for believing in something other than my opinion of it. I don't want to believe a lie just because it says what I want to hear.
So, here we go. Hopefully I get this done this year. (Just kidding.) But it is a little like trying to cram a watermelon into a coke bottle. Before we can start, we have to define a few terms.
As I prepare to get into the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian?", I have to say that I'm excited and a little intimidated. I can't wait to get this part of my mind into written form. I sort of did it once before, as I developed the answer in the first place but it was a mess. My biggest challenge will be to present my thoughts in a coagulated, organized way that someone else has a chance of following, and do it thoroughly and concisely at the same time.
I was raised Christian. I could quote bible verses and stories long before I could read. As an adult, I wanted to know why I believe what I believe, and whether there is any substance to it, or whether I just had it crammed down my throat as a little kid and never considered any other options. The cool part is that Christianity passed my test - at least to my satisfaction. Now I make a humble effort to explain it to everyone else.
In no way do I intend to write a comprehensive, one size fits all, apologetic dissertation. That is work for others who are much more educated and intelligent than I am. (And nobody has come up with a good one yet that I know of.) My intent is much more simplistic. I want to explain why I believe, not necessarily why everyone else should. As I have said, I'm nobody's judge. I'm also nobody's brain.
Another challenge involves the circular nature of any worldview. If you think about it, it has to be this way. A worldview is a working theory of everything. By definition, a worldview cannot have a reference point outside of itself. If it could, it wouldn't be a worldview at all. Christianity, atheism, humanism, all other religions and all non-religious worldviews are circular. Even high school geometry is circular. The first thing we learn about geometry is to postulate the existence of a point and a line, and a concept that the shortest distance between any two points is a straight line. There is no proof that these postulates are valid. Yet all higher math depends on them being true. So it is with worldviews in general.
This is one reason we cannot prove the existence of God. If God exists, by definition there is no point of reference outside of God that can be used to independently validate His existence. Since logic offers no possibility of proving a negative, there is no way to prove that God does not exist. We're stuck with reason for better or worse when discussing a worldview, a theory of everything.
Ultimately, acceptance of any worldview is a matter of choice - A matter of decision. This much, I should be able to prove to everyone over the next several dozen (hopefully not) posts. But there also has to be a basis for believing in something other than my opinion of it. I don't want to believe a lie just because it says what I want to hear.
So, here we go. Hopefully I get this done this year. (Just kidding.) But it is a little like trying to cram a watermelon into a coke bottle. Before we can start, we have to define a few terms.
Friday, January 7, 2011
MIQ #1 RESOLVED Forever!
"What's in a name, anyway?"
So the "Why am I gay?" question, which has provided a significant level of frustration for me in the past because I've been taught (wrongly) that it is abominable in God's sight, needs an answer, or at least a resolution. I looked for one, and the more I looked, the bigger the question became and the more frustrated I became with the answers available to me.
And then an event happened in an instant. I could characterize the event as an Epiphany, a fever breaking, the sun bursting through the clouds, an awakening or something similar. But in a certain instant in time, I knew something I did not know in the instant before. Here's what I knew in that instant:
First, I knew that God has many names. We call Him God, but what does that mean? We call Him Faithful, Savior, Provider, Father, Creator, Healer, and a hundred other names. Each of these names describes or connotes some attribute, some manifestation, some characteristic of God. Every one of these names are true.
I knew that I had a name too. I am called Terry. So what? What does that mean? I have many names, just like God. In my case, some of those names are complimentary and I am proud of them. Others are derogatory, and I am not proud of them.
Then I knew that God has only called me one name. God has called me 'His Son'.
And I knew that any other name that I might be called, true or false, good or bad, complimentary or derogatory, is irrelevant; Any other name that I can be called is overshadowed and made insignificant by the name that God called me. I have only one name that matters, and that name was given to me by the Only One Who Matters. And it is a good name, a name I am proud of, a name that overrides any other name.
And I knew that I would never again allow anyone on this planet to devalue that name or try to take it away from me.
And I knew that I would never again ask, "Why am I gay?", "Why am I half-blind?", "Why am I - any other name - "?
And the game changed. In that instant, life changed for me. Instead of fighting, trying and failing to be worthy or acceptable (or just not offensive) to God, I started thinking in terms of how to honor the name He gave me in every thing I do. I am His son, and I want to be good at being His son in whatever context life places me in; gay, straight, rich, poor, slave, free, leader, follower, teacher, student, almost blind or any other context.
Life is not about all of my names. It is about honoring my Father with everything that I have - my mind, body, sexuality, heart, soul, money, all of my possessions and all of my dreams. Life isn't about not being any number of somethings, it is about being something special, wonderful and exciting.
The question is resolved.
So the "Why am I gay?" question, which has provided a significant level of frustration for me in the past because I've been taught (wrongly) that it is abominable in God's sight, needs an answer, or at least a resolution. I looked for one, and the more I looked, the bigger the question became and the more frustrated I became with the answers available to me.
And then an event happened in an instant. I could characterize the event as an Epiphany, a fever breaking, the sun bursting through the clouds, an awakening or something similar. But in a certain instant in time, I knew something I did not know in the instant before. Here's what I knew in that instant:
First, I knew that God has many names. We call Him God, but what does that mean? We call Him Faithful, Savior, Provider, Father, Creator, Healer, and a hundred other names. Each of these names describes or connotes some attribute, some manifestation, some characteristic of God. Every one of these names are true.
I knew that I had a name too. I am called Terry. So what? What does that mean? I have many names, just like God. In my case, some of those names are complimentary and I am proud of them. Others are derogatory, and I am not proud of them.
Then I knew that God has only called me one name. God has called me 'His Son'.
And I knew that any other name that I might be called, true or false, good or bad, complimentary or derogatory, is irrelevant; Any other name that I can be called is overshadowed and made insignificant by the name that God called me. I have only one name that matters, and that name was given to me by the Only One Who Matters. And it is a good name, a name I am proud of, a name that overrides any other name.
And I knew that I would never again allow anyone on this planet to devalue that name or try to take it away from me.
And I knew that I would never again ask, "Why am I gay?", "Why am I half-blind?", "Why am I - any other name - "?
And the game changed. In that instant, life changed for me. Instead of fighting, trying and failing to be worthy or acceptable (or just not offensive) to God, I started thinking in terms of how to honor the name He gave me in every thing I do. I am His son, and I want to be good at being His son in whatever context life places me in; gay, straight, rich, poor, slave, free, leader, follower, teacher, student, almost blind or any other context.
Life is not about all of my names. It is about honoring my Father with everything that I have - my mind, body, sexuality, heart, soul, money, all of my possessions and all of my dreams. Life isn't about not being any number of somethings, it is about being something special, wonderful and exciting.
The question is resolved.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
Tough World...
Following is an email I received this morning concerning the ministry in Zambia, Africa I have become involved with. The ministry is called Mufutuli Vineyards. Mufutuli means Savior in their language. More info on the ministry is available at http://www.charlesinafrica.org/ If we ever think we have problems in the U.S. this thinking can easily be corrected by spending a week or two in a 3rd world country like Zambia.
Terry,
Had some bad news from Charles this morning. One of the 2 boys you been sponsoring for school was killed Christmas day. I asked him which one. He said the guys name was Stephen, he was about 20-21 years old and he was in 11th grade. I trying to remember which young man this was?
Charles said no one really knows what happened. Charles called for him to come and fellowship on Christmas and instead he went off drinking with some of his friends and something happened.
Tough world…
In Zambia, the government pays for school through 8th grade. After that it costs $60 per term (there are 3 terms each year) to continue one's education. Most families cannot afford the tuition, and many others can only afford 1 term per year. That's how they have 21 year old 11th graders.
I never met Stephen. I met Malumbe, the boy on the right. He wants to finish high school then go on to become a doctor and help the people in his part of Zambia. There is virtually no health care available for these people at all now, and HIV/AIDS is far above epidemic levels.
Young people dying in rural Zambia is all too commonplace. A couple of years ago, my brother went there to see about starting the farm, and attended the funeral of an eight year old boy who was killed by a crocodile at the river as he tried to draw out water for his family. His mother stood on the bank and watched helplessly.
We should be thankful for all that we have in this country before we bitch about anything that we feel needs to change. God, please be with Stephen's family.
Terry,
Had some bad news from Charles this morning. One of the 2 boys you been sponsoring for school was killed Christmas day. I asked him which one. He said the guys name was Stephen, he was about 20-21 years old and he was in 11th grade. I trying to remember which young man this was?
Charles said no one really knows what happened. Charles called for him to come and fellowship on Christmas and instead he went off drinking with some of his friends and something happened.
Tough world…
 |
| Stephen is on the Left |
In Zambia, the government pays for school through 8th grade. After that it costs $60 per term (there are 3 terms each year) to continue one's education. Most families cannot afford the tuition, and many others can only afford 1 term per year. That's how they have 21 year old 11th graders.
I never met Stephen. I met Malumbe, the boy on the right. He wants to finish high school then go on to become a doctor and help the people in his part of Zambia. There is virtually no health care available for these people at all now, and HIV/AIDS is far above epidemic levels.
Young people dying in rural Zambia is all too commonplace. A couple of years ago, my brother went there to see about starting the farm, and attended the funeral of an eight year old boy who was killed by a crocodile at the river as he tried to draw out water for his family. His mother stood on the bank and watched helplessly.
We should be thankful for all that we have in this country before we bitch about anything that we feel needs to change. God, please be with Stephen's family.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
MIQ #1, Why Am I Gay?
"Sometimes the answer is, 'There is no answer'."
I admit to having trouble with this post. I think it's an important issue to deal with, but not for me. The weird thing is that of the two MIQ's, I spent a whole lot more time and effort on the second one than I did this one. But the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian", was the non-negotiable one. It's the one I wasn't ever willing to change.
If I ask myself, "Why am I too fat?", the answer implies the resolution. I'm too fat because I eat too much and don't exercise enough. The implied course of action is, "Move More, Eat Less." I have not found a valid answer to MIQ #1 that implies a feasible course of action.
But for the record, here are the broad stroke answers I researched and considered:
The religious/moral answer is characterized by words like sin, addiction, perversion, character defect, weakness. Their implied course of action is change the way I think. Make different choices. In extreme cases, these guys even came up with helpful programs to assist in the process. Shock therapy was used on gay guys who were shown pics of naked men and became aroused, then hit with the juice to 'teach' them that this thinking was wrong. Other disincentives like jail, mutilation, excommunication and even execution were and are used to teach society that the homosexual perspective is wrong. All it did was make people lie and be miserable.
The medical/psycho-babble answer is characterized by word like genetic difference, environmental anomalies, chemical imbalances, normal sexual development issues. The implied answer is expand the definition of normal, promote self esteem, accept yourself and distance yourself from those who will not accept you. All is well, there is no problem here. Nothing is wrong. This boils down to, "If you can't fix it, ignore it."
Of course the interaction and conflict between the two groups above, conducted mostly by straight people with no dog in the fight anyway, is pretty intense. They throw rocks at each other constantly, never knowing or caring that I'm caught in the middle.
The more I thought about this issue, the more disillusioned I became with both religion and science. The more I studied this, the more convinced I was that nobody had an answer that implied a resolution. The more I looked into these things, the more isolated, introverted, depressed, lonely and ashamed I became. I tried to walk away from the question completely, just to maintain my sanity. But the issue didn't go away.
Then I found my resolution. An event occurred that resolved the question for me powerfully, completely and instantly. But this post is long enough, so I'll write about it next.
I admit to having trouble with this post. I think it's an important issue to deal with, but not for me. The weird thing is that of the two MIQ's, I spent a whole lot more time and effort on the second one than I did this one. But the second MIQ, "Why am I Christian", was the non-negotiable one. It's the one I wasn't ever willing to change.
If I ask myself, "Why am I too fat?", the answer implies the resolution. I'm too fat because I eat too much and don't exercise enough. The implied course of action is, "Move More, Eat Less." I have not found a valid answer to MIQ #1 that implies a feasible course of action.
But for the record, here are the broad stroke answers I researched and considered:
The religious/moral answer is characterized by words like sin, addiction, perversion, character defect, weakness. Their implied course of action is change the way I think. Make different choices. In extreme cases, these guys even came up with helpful programs to assist in the process. Shock therapy was used on gay guys who were shown pics of naked men and became aroused, then hit with the juice to 'teach' them that this thinking was wrong. Other disincentives like jail, mutilation, excommunication and even execution were and are used to teach society that the homosexual perspective is wrong. All it did was make people lie and be miserable.
The medical/psycho-babble answer is characterized by word like genetic difference, environmental anomalies, chemical imbalances, normal sexual development issues. The implied answer is expand the definition of normal, promote self esteem, accept yourself and distance yourself from those who will not accept you. All is well, there is no problem here. Nothing is wrong. This boils down to, "If you can't fix it, ignore it."
Of course the interaction and conflict between the two groups above, conducted mostly by straight people with no dog in the fight anyway, is pretty intense. They throw rocks at each other constantly, never knowing or caring that I'm caught in the middle.
The more I thought about this issue, the more disillusioned I became with both religion and science. The more I studied this, the more convinced I was that nobody had an answer that implied a resolution. The more I looked into these things, the more isolated, introverted, depressed, lonely and ashamed I became. I tried to walk away from the question completely, just to maintain my sanity. But the issue didn't go away.
Then I found my resolution. An event occurred that resolved the question for me powerfully, completely and instantly. But this post is long enough, so I'll write about it next.
Tuesday, January 4, 2011
Noah Knew!
"And I thought I was crazy... "
Wow! Some organization called WeCanKnow.com has discovered that the end of the world will be October 21,2011. Evidently, the rapture will happen on May 21, 2011, so that Christians don't have to endure the end of the world coming just a few months later.
Of course, traditional Christian wisdom is that "no man knows the day or the hour." And Christ said plainly that He didn't know. But these guys say they know, and that we should pay attention to them. Evidently, it's right there in black and white, right in the bible. It's just that nobody else in the last couple of thousand years was smart enough to read it. Their contention is the Noah knew about the flood, therefore we should be able to know about the rapture.
And the flood and rapture are related in what way exactly?
I guess it's good news. I'm ready now for that matter. I'm looking forward to seeing God come out from behind the clouds and shake things up. But I just can't seem to make myself believe these guys. Evidently the same guy predicted the second coming of Christ would occur in 1994.
It's frustrating enough to be Christian and Gay. Do I really have to endure kooks like these guys? Overall, the gay world thinks I'm as bonkers as these guys are. The Christian world thinks I'm destined to burn in hell. To make matters worse, they're claiming that the date they picked is actually based on biblical math. {Mr Happy Cringes}
I wish the people in the world with ID-10-T Syndrome would just talk among themselves and stay off of the Internet (and billboards). They're making me look bad.
And I thought I was crazy. It's common knowledge that the end of the world will be 12-21-2012.
Wow! Some organization called WeCanKnow.com has discovered that the end of the world will be October 21,2011. Evidently, the rapture will happen on May 21, 2011, so that Christians don't have to endure the end of the world coming just a few months later.
Of course, traditional Christian wisdom is that "no man knows the day or the hour." And Christ said plainly that He didn't know. But these guys say they know, and that we should pay attention to them. Evidently, it's right there in black and white, right in the bible. It's just that nobody else in the last couple of thousand years was smart enough to read it. Their contention is the Noah knew about the flood, therefore we should be able to know about the rapture.
And the flood and rapture are related in what way exactly?
I guess it's good news. I'm ready now for that matter. I'm looking forward to seeing God come out from behind the clouds and shake things up. But I just can't seem to make myself believe these guys. Evidently the same guy predicted the second coming of Christ would occur in 1994.
I wish the people in the world with ID-10-T Syndrome would just talk among themselves and stay off of the Internet (and billboards). They're making me look bad.
And I thought I was crazy. It's common knowledge that the end of the world will be 12-21-2012.
Monday, January 3, 2011
Intro: The 2 MIQ's (Most Important Questions)
" 'Why?' is almost never a valid question. But sometimes it has to be asked anyway. "
Well, I guess it's time for me to try to address what I think are the two MIQ's (Most Important Questions). They may not be the two most important questions in the universe, but in my life, they need an answer - or at least a resolution.
The first question is, "Why am I gay?" The second is, Why am I a Christian?"
The apparent mutual exclusivity in my life could be easily avoided by renouncing Christianity - or watering it down like others have so that Christ doesn't really stand for anything. Gay and otherwise, many people have decided that Christ isn't for them because of some theme and variation of, "He doesn't meet my expectations." If Christ loves everyone except me, then He really isn't Christ. It's not a hard trip, and many have made that jump with ease.
If I could take a drug, say a prayer, do a chant or dance or some pagan ritual, or borrow Harry Potter's wand and not be gay, I would do it in a heartbeat and never look back. Why would anybody choose this lifestyle? I would have made a good father, husband and little league coach (well maybe not a coach). I would love to have fallen in love with the girl of my dreams back in the early 80's, gotten married, raised two (but no more than that) beautiful kids and hummed the "Leave it to Beaver" tune for the rest of my life.
Whenever I fall in love, I fall hard - and forever. I would have been a faithful, competent partner. I would have worked hard to please, protect, cherish and be an asset to whoever I mutually connected with in that way. There's not a day that goes by that I don't long for that opportunity.
So why on earth did I have to spend my life to age 40 avoiding relationships with girls (so they didn't think the world was turning in a direction it couldn't possibly go), and avoiding relationships with guys (so I didn't turn in a direction I was taught is automatic rejection of everything I believed about Christ)?
And I do believe the Christian worldview. Completely. I value my relationship with Christ and all that He represents, and to this day will not give it up for sex or human love or anything else on the planet. I was 'saved' June 9, 1972, when I was 9 years old at Vacation Bible School. And I believed in it then. I grew up seeking the things of God, willingly and eagerly. I was baptized, and it meant something to me. Because of it I was different. Even in High School when others went out and did things I knew to be wrong,. I thought, "Sorry, I can't go there. I've been baptized, and that changes the rules for me."
Nonetheless, I have fallen completely and hopelessly in love with three guys in my life. Two are straight. One is a successful doctor, and I still love him completely. He has a wife and 4 kids, and as far as I'm concerned is the greatest person on the planet. The second is almost as great a guy, married with kid, and leading a wonderful life. The third is gay, and that story didn't end well at all. But I still love him.
I could write all night about how terrible, hurtful and difficult the conflict between God and Gay has been for me. I'm not bitching about my life though. I played the cards dealt to me as well as I knew how with a pure heart, and did not compromise in either direction. I always felt that it was better to be stuck in the middle of the conflict than it is to resolve it inappropriately.
If I have an objective in addressing the MIQ's, it is so that the next guy like me can have some assistance resolving the conflict before he is old and ugly, and can enjoy the benefits of a wonderful life, in the sight of God and in the arms of whoever his Eve turns out to be - even if it's Steve. I sure miss mine, and somehow I know that whoever he is, he misses me too.
Well, I guess it's time for me to try to address what I think are the two MIQ's (Most Important Questions). They may not be the two most important questions in the universe, but in my life, they need an answer - or at least a resolution.
The first question is, "Why am I gay?" The second is, Why am I a Christian?"
The apparent mutual exclusivity in my life could be easily avoided by renouncing Christianity - or watering it down like others have so that Christ doesn't really stand for anything. Gay and otherwise, many people have decided that Christ isn't for them because of some theme and variation of, "He doesn't meet my expectations." If Christ loves everyone except me, then He really isn't Christ. It's not a hard trip, and many have made that jump with ease.
If I could take a drug, say a prayer, do a chant or dance or some pagan ritual, or borrow Harry Potter's wand and not be gay, I would do it in a heartbeat and never look back. Why would anybody choose this lifestyle? I would have made a good father, husband and little league coach (well maybe not a coach). I would love to have fallen in love with the girl of my dreams back in the early 80's, gotten married, raised two (but no more than that) beautiful kids and hummed the "Leave it to Beaver" tune for the rest of my life.
Whenever I fall in love, I fall hard - and forever. I would have been a faithful, competent partner. I would have worked hard to please, protect, cherish and be an asset to whoever I mutually connected with in that way. There's not a day that goes by that I don't long for that opportunity.
So why on earth did I have to spend my life to age 40 avoiding relationships with girls (so they didn't think the world was turning in a direction it couldn't possibly go), and avoiding relationships with guys (so I didn't turn in a direction I was taught is automatic rejection of everything I believed about Christ)?
And I do believe the Christian worldview. Completely. I value my relationship with Christ and all that He represents, and to this day will not give it up for sex or human love or anything else on the planet. I was 'saved' June 9, 1972, when I was 9 years old at Vacation Bible School. And I believed in it then. I grew up seeking the things of God, willingly and eagerly. I was baptized, and it meant something to me. Because of it I was different. Even in High School when others went out and did things I knew to be wrong,. I thought, "Sorry, I can't go there. I've been baptized, and that changes the rules for me."
Nonetheless, I have fallen completely and hopelessly in love with three guys in my life. Two are straight. One is a successful doctor, and I still love him completely. He has a wife and 4 kids, and as far as I'm concerned is the greatest person on the planet. The second is almost as great a guy, married with kid, and leading a wonderful life. The third is gay, and that story didn't end well at all. But I still love him.
I could write all night about how terrible, hurtful and difficult the conflict between God and Gay has been for me. I'm not bitching about my life though. I played the cards dealt to me as well as I knew how with a pure heart, and did not compromise in either direction. I always felt that it was better to be stuck in the middle of the conflict than it is to resolve it inappropriately.
If I have an objective in addressing the MIQ's, it is so that the next guy like me can have some assistance resolving the conflict before he is old and ugly, and can enjoy the benefits of a wonderful life, in the sight of God and in the arms of whoever his Eve turns out to be - even if it's Steve. I sure miss mine, and somehow I know that whoever he is, he misses me too.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
I Love My Church...But
"Draw me unto Thee, and let us RUN together."
I haven't talked enough yet about my church, Expressions OKC. Finding a church that I can deal with was one of the major accomplishments of 2010. I haven't been to church in several years for about a zillion reasons (excuses). Hypocrisy, preaching condemnation, church politics, the fakeness of it all, focus on money instead of Christ, blah, blah, blah.
Then there's the Gay vs. God issue (read the Christian Math link at the right to see what I think of that mess). I felt like I had to lie to go to church. If people really knew me, they'd kick me so far out of their church I'd wind up over the rainbow in the land of Oz. And they'd do it so fast I'd break the sound barrier on the way. Most of the people who would have kicked me out are probably being less than truthful about themselves too. Overall, some of the churches I've been to made me feel dirtier after I left than I was when I got there.
I've been to some other 'affirming' churches (whatever that means) in the OKC area, but they don't seem like real churches to me. Some of them reject the creeds and sacraments of Christianity altogether. Some mix up Jesus with some kind of social or political agenda. They call themselves churches, but they aren't churches any more than the thousand fried chicken stands around the country that call themselves churches.(Get it? Churches Fried Chicken? Ha Ha.)
Remember, I'm nobody's judge, and I'm not criticizing other organizations or their mission. I just don't belong there. It's not what I'm about.
I cannot express how wonderful it was to go there the first few times, and stand in God's presence in worship with a bunch of other gay guys. The experience was overwhelming to me. For so long I've stood in church and tried to worship God in Spirit and in Truth, but I'm being untruthful with everyone else in the place. WOW. It's so cool not to have to do that anymore.
Although Expressions is a 'specialty church' in that it serves the gay and Lesbian community, it is first a Jesus church. They believe and practice authentic Christianity. But in the heart of service, not politics or social agendas, they do operate a community outreach center for the gay world that offers free HIV testing and other services. This is cool too.
BUT, I'm finding that I am much more "Type A" than my new church. I may be walking in a different place just now, or I may be certifiably crazy (such is a constant possibility for me the way I see things). These guys move too slow. I'm ready to fly on Eagle's wings, and participate in the Universal Momentum that I've been thinking about lately. I want to RUN the race that is set before us, and drop all of the baggage that holds me back like a bad debt. It seems like a lot of churches allow people to get too bogged down in the hurts, situations and circumstances around their own little lives. The objective of healing is to overcome/obliterate those things so we can climb the important mountains and do it expeditiously.
I want to grow up. I want to reach out. I want to have some impact someplace. I want to let my light shine. I want to walk into the destiny that I believe God has ordained for those who love Him. I want to live on the edge a little. I am not content to hide myself in a church and sit around talking about the same things I've been hearing since I was nine.
God, plug me in!
I haven't talked enough yet about my church, Expressions OKC. Finding a church that I can deal with was one of the major accomplishments of 2010. I haven't been to church in several years for about a zillion reasons (excuses). Hypocrisy, preaching condemnation, church politics, the fakeness of it all, focus on money instead of Christ, blah, blah, blah.
Then there's the Gay vs. God issue (read the Christian Math link at the right to see what I think of that mess). I felt like I had to lie to go to church. If people really knew me, they'd kick me so far out of their church I'd wind up over the rainbow in the land of Oz. And they'd do it so fast I'd break the sound barrier on the way. Most of the people who would have kicked me out are probably being less than truthful about themselves too. Overall, some of the churches I've been to made me feel dirtier after I left than I was when I got there.
I've been to some other 'affirming' churches (whatever that means) in the OKC area, but they don't seem like real churches to me. Some of them reject the creeds and sacraments of Christianity altogether. Some mix up Jesus with some kind of social or political agenda. They call themselves churches, but they aren't churches any more than the thousand fried chicken stands around the country that call themselves churches.(Get it? Churches Fried Chicken? Ha Ha.)
Remember, I'm nobody's judge, and I'm not criticizing other organizations or their mission. I just don't belong there. It's not what I'm about.
I cannot express how wonderful it was to go there the first few times, and stand in God's presence in worship with a bunch of other gay guys. The experience was overwhelming to me. For so long I've stood in church and tried to worship God in Spirit and in Truth, but I'm being untruthful with everyone else in the place. WOW. It's so cool not to have to do that anymore.
Although Expressions is a 'specialty church' in that it serves the gay and Lesbian community, it is first a Jesus church. They believe and practice authentic Christianity. But in the heart of service, not politics or social agendas, they do operate a community outreach center for the gay world that offers free HIV testing and other services. This is cool too.
BUT, I'm finding that I am much more "Type A" than my new church. I may be walking in a different place just now, or I may be certifiably crazy (such is a constant possibility for me the way I see things). These guys move too slow. I'm ready to fly on Eagle's wings, and participate in the Universal Momentum that I've been thinking about lately. I want to RUN the race that is set before us, and drop all of the baggage that holds me back like a bad debt. It seems like a lot of churches allow people to get too bogged down in the hurts, situations and circumstances around their own little lives. The objective of healing is to overcome/obliterate those things so we can climb the important mountains and do it expeditiously.
I want to grow up. I want to reach out. I want to have some impact someplace. I want to let my light shine. I want to walk into the destiny that I believe God has ordained for those who love Him. I want to live on the edge a little. I am not content to hide myself in a church and sit around talking about the same things I've been hearing since I was nine.
God, plug me in!
Saturday, January 1, 2011
New Year's Resolutions 2011
"Everybody needs someone to follow, someone to walk with and someone to lead. "
If you can't tell from reading my blog lately, Life Is Good (for a crazy, half blind, naive, gullible, ugly idiot like me, anyway). I have no complaints, and am thankful and appreciative of where I am just now.
I have but one New Year's Resolution:
I tend to think too much about universal momentum, and things too deep for the majority of people I know. I want to learn to be shallow so I can interact with more people. I don't have a clue how to do this. And I also don't want to live a lie, or try to be something that I am not.
I tend to be a loner. Friends are, generally speaking, a pain in the ass. I need to make some friends that don't always want something, and are willing to contribute something. My past experience with people is pretty much the opposite. They always want, need and take but never give. I know that not everybody is like this, just the people I seem to attract.
But I spend too much time alone. Too much time thinking and not enough time doing. I have a lot to give, and it makes me feel good to give (until I run out, then it hurts).
So, there it is. My New Year's Resolution.
Now, how the hell do I do it? Any thoughts would be appreciated, cause I don't have a clue.
(Hey, I could start a blog.)
If you can't tell from reading my blog lately, Life Is Good (for a crazy, half blind, naive, gullible, ugly idiot like me, anyway). I have no complaints, and am thankful and appreciative of where I am just now.
I have but one New Year's Resolution:
I resolve to increase, qualitatively and quantitatively, the scope of my
social life: my interaction with the human race.
I tend to think too much about universal momentum, and things too deep for the majority of people I know. I want to learn to be shallow so I can interact with more people. I don't have a clue how to do this. And I also don't want to live a lie, or try to be something that I am not.
I tend to be a loner. Friends are, generally speaking, a pain in the ass. I need to make some friends that don't always want something, and are willing to contribute something. My past experience with people is pretty much the opposite. They always want, need and take but never give. I know that not everybody is like this, just the people I seem to attract.
But I spend too much time alone. Too much time thinking and not enough time doing. I have a lot to give, and it makes me feel good to give (until I run out, then it hurts).
So, there it is. My New Year's Resolution.
Now, how the hell do I do it? Any thoughts would be appreciated, cause I don't have a clue.
(Hey, I could start a blog.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)